Submitted by: Geoff Ebbs, Louis Sanzogni Date: 30th September 2025
“A reporting focus on agricultural production and exports has distracted from the perception that agricultural commodities are food, obscuring and de-prioritising nutrition and health outcomes”
CSIRO Towards a State of the Food Systems Report
Executive Summary
This submission focuses on answering questions one and four in the National Food Security Discussion paper (the Discussion Paper), using the findings from computational discourse analysis of 188 stakeholder submissions to the 2023 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture Food Security Inquiry (the Inquiry) (Australia, 2023). Our analysis reveals that the current framing unnecessarily focuses on the Trade and market access segment of the Whole of System considerations missing key contributions to the Inquiry that address the other four segments. Possible implementation approaches are also considered.
Key Finding: Our key finding is that while the majority of submissions to the Inquiry focused on trade, productivity and stability in line with the terms of reference, almost one fifth of the submissions positioned food as central to systemic considerations of health, welfare and education, consistent with the government’s broader agenda.
These submissions were not coordinated, focused on disparate outcomes and used diverse terminology to express their specific views. As a result, the Inquiry’s recommendations 22-35 deal with specific concerns but lack an explicit focus on their potentially joint contribution to Health, Climate, People, and Regional security. The danger is that these distinct policy agendas pit stakeholders against each other in a zero-sum competition for resources. The opportunity is to embrace their diversity as providing the resilience required to build long-term stability.
Core Recommendation: The National Food Security Strategy should explicitly acknowledge and integrate these multiple policy agendas. This requires connecting food security to broader government initiatives including the Measuring What Matters, Net Zero Plan, and Future Made in Australia.
Contents
Contents
The Integration Gap: a Stakeholder Analysis. 3
Cluster 1: Market & Policy-Oriented Submissions. 3
Cluster 2: Traditional Agriculture & Environmental Advocacy. 3
Cluster 3: Social Justice & Community-Oriented Submissions. 4
Cluster 4: Integrated/Systemic Approach. 4
Multiple Policy Agendas, Not Ideological Opposition. 5
Methodology: Computational Discourse Analysis. 8
1. Food Security as a Cross-Portfolio Challenge. 11
2. Develop Complementary Implementation Pathways. 11
3. Establish Working Groups on Bridge Concepts. 11
4. Acknowledge Systems-Thinking Constituencies. 11
5. Embed Resilience Through Diversity as a Guiding Principle. 12
Methodological Constraints. 12
Implementation Challenges and Approaches. 12
The Integration Gap: a Stakeholder Analysis
The PCA and cluster analysis revealed four distinct groupings of submissions, each characterized by different ideological orientations and thematic priorities. Detailed below are the priorities of stakeholders with a focus on economic growth, protection of agribusiness and the environment, social justice, and advocates for systemic change.
The first two clusters represent 63% of the submissions representing commercial and agricultural interests separated by a primary focus on either economic growth, or responding to environmental challenges. Almost 20% of the submissions focused on food security in the Australian population with health, nutrition and access to food as the driver of their recommendations. The remaining submissions proposed integrated solutions that put food at the heart of the national agenda, shifting the health and welfare agenda to a preventative footing by engaging education and innovation to build wellbeing based on engagement with food production, processing and consumption. Our findings indicate that this integrated approach offers the means to adopt diverse policy responses that associatively combine to build resilience in the face of unknown challenges that may emerge in the future.
Cluster 1: Market & Policy-Oriented Submissions
This cluster, comprising approximately 35% of submissions, emphasized economic growth, market-driven policies, and government action in the agricultural sector. These submissions generally came from peak industry bodies, major agribusiness corporations, and some government agencies. They conceptualized food security primarily in terms of food availability, focusing on production capacity, supply chain efficiency, and export potential.
A representative submission from this cluster argued that “Australia’s food security is underpinned by its ability to produce far more food than we consume domestically,” and that “maintaining a strong export orientation is essential to the continued viability of Australian agriculture” (Submission 103). These submissions typically advocated for reduced regulation, investment in productivity-enhancing infrastructure, and policies to address input costs and labour shortages.
Cluster 2: Traditional Agriculture & Environmental Advocacy
This cluster, making up about 28% of submissions, emphasized land preservation, regenerative farming practices, and environmental sustainability. It included submissions from individual farmers, environmental organizations, and some regional bodies. These submissions approached food security through the lens of long-term sustainability, focusing on the health of ecosystems that support food production.
As one submission in this cluster argued, “there is no food security on a dead planet” (Submission 147). Policy recommendations from this group included support for regenerative agriculture, protection of agricultural land from development, water conservation measures, and reduced dependence on chemical inputs. Many submissions in this cluster advocated for a transformation of the food system toward more ecological approaches.
Cluster 3: Social Justice & Community-Oriented Submissions
Representing approximately 22% of submissions, this cluster focused on food equity, community empowerment, and rights-based approaches to food security. Submissions in this cluster came primarily from NGOs, health organizations, and community groups. They defined food security in terms of equitable access to nutritious food for all population groups, with particular attention to disadvantaged communities.
A typical submission in this cluster stated that “food security is not simply about producing enough calories, but ensuring that all people have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food” (Submission 41). These submissions often highlighted issues of food insecurity among vulnerable populations, including remote Indigenous communities, low-income households, and people with disabilities. Policy recommendations centred on food sovereignty, community-based food systems, and social equity considerations.
Cluster 4: Integrated/Systemic Approach
The remaining 15% of submissions displayed a more balanced profile, with moderate scores across multiple ideological dimensions rather than strong alignment with any single perspective. These submissions often came from research institutions, local governments, and individuals with cross-sectoral experience. They tended to acknowledge multiple dimensions of food security and propose integrated approaches.
A representative submission argued that “food security requires balancing immediate production needs with long-term sustainability, economic viability with social equity” (Submission 34). Policy recommendations from this cluster often emphasized systems thinking, cross-sectoral collaboration, and adaptive governance approaches.
Alternative analysis
Given the vulnerability of principal components analysis to initial conditions, a range of settings were applied and alternative clustering examined to validate these initial findings. This second clustering analysis identified six primary approaches to food security among stakeholders making submissions to the Inquiry:
- Trade and Export Focus (~15% of submissions): Emphasizes Australia’s role as food exporter, market access, and commodity production efficiency
- High-Tech Innovation (~12% of submissions): Prioritizes technological solutions, precision agriculture, and R&D investment
- Commercial Growth (~18% of submissions): Focuses on industry competitiveness, input costs, and regulatory streamlining
- Environmental Sustainability (~20% of submissions): Centers climate adaptation, regenerative agriculture, and ecosystem health
- Social Justice and Equity (~17% of submissions): Emphasizes food access, community sovereignty, and distributional concerns
- Institutional Integration (~18% of submissions): Advocates cross-portfolio coordination and systems governance
This clustering separates Environmental Sustainability from Commercial Growth and Technological Innovation from Trade but is generally consistent with earlier findings.
Multiple Policy Agendas, Not Ideological Opposition
These clusters reveal the multifaceted nature of food security as a policy domain, with stakeholders approaching the issue from fundamentally different ideological positions. The diversity of perspectives reflects not merely disagreements over means, but different conceptualizations of what food security entails and what values should guide policy development. The relationship between stakeholders and the UN definitions of food security, as reinterpreted on page 3 of the Discussion Paper, were examined. Unsurprisingly, all clusters addressed aspects of these definitions but there was alignment between commerce, trade and availability; food justice and access; and between integrated approaches and all definitions including utilisation.
Subsequent responses
The CSIRO’s Food Horizons report (Nelson, 2025) and ASPIs National Food Security Preparedness paper (Bank, 2025) are explicitly mentioned in the Discussion Paper as inputs to the discussion.
Significantly, the CSIRO’s Food Horizons report closely aligns with the integrated and balanced submissions identified in our clusters, calling for:
- Cross-sectoral policy coordination beyond single-portfolio approaches
- Integration of sustainability, equity, nutrition, and economic goals
- Recognition that “reporting on sectoral economic goals has crowded out reporting necessary to pursue a broader mix of longer-term sustainability, equity, food safety, nutrition and health goals”
- Distributed governance models involving multiple stakeholders
The substantial stakeholder alignment with systemic approaches offers the opportunity to coordinate the whole of systems areas “Health and nutrition”, “Climate change and sustainability”, “People” and “regional security” within the key priority area of “Resilient supply chains” and potentially an additional priority area of “Integrated regions”. That new priority area would focus on regional expertise and innovation in both high-tech and nature-based responses to food security: increasing regional populations, bio-diversity, soil-health, and ground water retention while also building regional communities of practice, centres of expertise, and integrated health, welfare, and education initiatives with food as a central theme. This is consistent with Bernard Salt’s recent call for regional centres of excellence (Bank, 2025) as well as directly addressing the Inquiry’s recommendations 9, 10, 12, 22, 24, 25, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35.
The ASPI National Food Security Preparedness Green Paper introduces a distinct policy logic rooted in national security and strategic preparedness. This framing diverges from the original terms of reference for the Inquiry and so does not align directly with the industrial growth logic and integrated wellbeing approaches found in many stakeholder submissions. The ASPI report emphasizes risk management, supply chain fortification, and state-industry coordination. This security paradigm aligns partially with statistical clusters emphasizing resilience and infrastructure, but it reframes these terms through a sovereignty-oriented, technocratic lens. It lacks the redistributive and ecological dimensions found in justice-oriented clusters, and instead proposes a centralized, risk-averse posture that may inadvertently reinforce hierarchical governance models. As such, the ASPI report represents a third pole in the discursive field—distinct from both growth and integrated wellness logics—and reflects the growing influence of national security epistemologies within public policy domains traditionally framed by social welfare or economic development concerns. It is likely that this framing might also be best served by its own priority area within the overall food security strategy.
The contrast between these two papers provides a stark example of the different priorities created by different frames of reference that have the potential to lead to competition for scarce government resources. Again, it is the conclusion of this analysis that diverse policy responses can support these frames of reference associatively, allowing collaboration where appropriate and building resilience through diversity.
Previous responses
The Inquiry’s submissions sit within a longer history of contested approaches to food security in Australia. Prior studies and policy processes reveal recurring tensions around nutrition, equity, land and water management, and climate adaptation.
Research by Larder, Lyons, and Woolcock (2012) introduced food justice as a framework for addressing equitable access to nutritious food, distinguishing it from alternative food networks focused more on food quality and consumption choices among affluent groups (Dixon, Dixon, Richards, & Richards, 2016). Subsequent work (Larder, 2017) positioned food justice as a response to gaps in urban planning and highlighted underexplored forms of grassroots food production, including domestic food growing. This indicates a persistent lack of systematic attention to smaller-scale and community-based food production in national strategies.
Sippel and Larder (Sippel & Larder, 2021) traced the challenges faced by the Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance in influencing the 2013 National Food Plan. Their analysis emphasised the absence of solidarity between rural producers, peri-urban horticulturists, and urban food networks, limiting the ability to advance a unified food justice agenda. This fragmentation echoes the divergent but potentially complementary clusters identified in our computational analysis.
These historical debates underscore that food security has long been framed in multiple, sometimes competing ways—nutrition and access, environmental sustainability, and commercial growth. The computational findings from the Inquiry submissions reflect a continuation of these patterns, reinforcing the need for integrative approaches that recognise diversity rather than privileging a single policy frame.
Missing Policy Connections
Our analysis indicates that stakeholder perspectives on food security align closely with several broader government initiatives. However, these connections are not fully reflected in the current discussion paper. Strengthening the National Food Security Strategy requires explicit integration of these policy domains:
Measuring What Matters
Stakeholder submissions frequently highlighted wellbeing, health, and equity considerations. These themes align with the government’s Measuring what matters statement, which aims to build a “healthy, secure, sustainable, cohesive and prosperous Australia”. Positioning food as central to health and wellbeing outcomes ensures that food security contributes to broader social and economic objectives. It also puts the budget on a proactive footing, making food central to a preventative focus on wellness rather than the reactive approach to curing illness.
National Climate Strategy
Partly because of their inclusion in the Inquiry’s terms of reference, climate adaptation and mitigation emerged as cross-cutting concerns across multiple clusters. Stakeholders consistently identified regenerative practices, on-farm renewables, and carbon sequestration as essential to resilient food systems. Despite this, the current framing of the National Food Plan treats climate change primarily as an external pressure; reframing it as a central organising principle would better reflect stakeholder emphasis and ecological realities.
Climate mitigation and adaptation measures are critical to food production and also offer significant revenue opportunities for regional economies through renewable energy and carbon sequestration. Additionally, carbon emissions are only one of the planetary boundaries that need to be managed. Food production is intimately entangled with the overlapping concerns around management of water, nutrients, bio-diversity, and soil .
Future Made in Australia
Several submissions advocated for local processing, regional value-adding, and innovation in agri-tech and bio-manufacturing. These priorities align directly with the Future Made in Australia agenda yet receive limited attention in the current food security framing. More explicit integration would position food systems as both a contributor to and beneficiary of national industry policy.
By integrating food security with wellbeing, climate, and industry agendas, the Strategy can move beyond treating food policy as primarily agricultural. This would align national food security with the multi-dimensional priorities consistently expressed by stakeholders.
Methodology: Computational Discourse Analysis
We analysed 188 submissions to the 2023 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture Food Security Inquiry using three complementary computational techniques:
1. Principal Components Analysis with K-Means Clustering
Identified distinct thematic clusters based on patterns of term co-occurrence. This allowed us to map stakeholder priorities into coherent groupings.
2. Seriation
Ordered submissions along a spectrum, revealing transition zones and gradational relationships between themes rather than treating categories as strictly separate.
3. Bridge Concept Analysis
Identified concepts that appeared across clusters and enabled communication between divergent stakeholder perspectives. Bridge terms included climate adaptation, integrated food systems, and regional resilience.
4. Validation
We tested the robustness of these results through:
• applying different coding schemes,
• varying the number of principal components and clusters,
• and running the clustering analysis on both concept frequency and co-occurrence data.
Although results varied at the margins, the key patterns remained consistent. Importantly, the “institutional integration” cluster aligned with CSIRO’s independently developed Food Horizons framework, providing external validation.
It is important to note that computational text analysis identifies discursive patterns but does not determine either the effectiveness of policy proposals or the representativeness of stakeholder groups. The findings therefore highlight areas of policy emphasis, divergence, and potential integration, leading us to suggest diverse responses rather than prescribing optimal solutions.
Addressing the Questions
The Discussion Paper specifically asks:
- What other principles should [the strategy] prioritise?
- What timeframe should the strategy work towards?
- What current or planned initiatives [can] improve food security?
- [What additional] key priority areas and whole-of-system considerations are needed?
The key finding of our analysis goes to question 1. We propose that the principle of resilience through diversity be applied to the development of diverse policy responses rather than proposing an optimal solution with exceptions for individual issues identified as urgent, or opportunistic. We also suggest possible implementation approaches that emerge separately from this analysis.
We mapped the frames of reference for various stakeholders and identified potentially competing agendas that have a configuration of agreement and disagreement with each other over priorities and desired outcomes. The principle of diverse policy responses allows stakeholders to respond to the priorities that concern them most, in association with other stakeholders working on related issues. This avoids competition for resources in a zero-sum approach and provides potential solutions to unknowable scenarios that cannot be reliably predicted.
Such diversity provides a range of possible answers to question 2. Examining a handful of the possible initiatives in answer to question 3 provides a rich GANNT chart of projects with existing pipelines that can be accelerated and coordinated to associatively support one another. A handful of examples include:
- The use of Artifical Intelligence, automation and ag-tech in agriculture, manufacture of inputs and the creation of new outputs (bio-synthesis, bio-fuels, renewable energy, carbon sequestration) is proceeding apace and can be appropriately accelerated, starting immediately.
- Urban food has both nature-based and high-tech proponents that can contribute significantly to strengthening and shortening supply chains, building community, addressing food-deserts, and integration of health, education and welfare outcomes. Such solutions are not restricted to major cities and can be incorporated in regional areas where major agricultural hubs suffer from fresh food shortages in the midst of mass production of food commodities.
- Existing food hub strategies are building on bio-regional approaches to food-production to create communities of practice that maximise returns to producers, while repopulating regional landscapes and activating local economies.
- Experimental bio-synthesis projects can be coordinated and connected associatively with Future Made in Australia initiatives to accelerate the development of a bio-tech sector that takes Australia from being a commodity exporter to an advanced technology.
- Institutional procurement strategies supporting social enterprise, regenerative food producers and local food processors will accelerate complementary production, processing and distribution schemes, revitalising regional economies while contributing to the diversification and resilience of the food system.
These projects all currently exist. They are in various stages of development and can be accelerated with relatively limited funding by coordinating the synergies between them to take advantage of the “network effect” and by providing a level playing field so that they can compete fairly with existing agribusiness.
One way to answer to question 4, then, is to create an additional priority area that focuses on Regional Security that integrates individual responses to the ‘bottom’ 25 recommendations of the Inquiry. This regional focus is simply one way to collect and collate the submissions currently treated as peripheral. Although not appearing in the submissions to the Inquiry, National Security emerges from ASPI’s Readiness paper as another priority area that may need to be included.
Adding new priority areas may not be effective, though, as it has the potential to dilute the focus of the National Food Security Strategy. There may be a case for simply recasting the three priority areas as Growth, Resilience and Security. These align with the dimensions of Food Security outlined on page 3 of the Discussions Paper with Growth focused on Availability, Resilience on Sustainability and Utilisation and Security focused on Access and Stability. The means of including diverse agenda into the key priority areas is dealt with below under Implementation of diversity, which falls outside the discussion of our analysis of the submissions.
Specific recommendations
Our findings indicate that stakeholders conceptualise food security through multiple policy lenses. To respond to this diversity, we recommend the following:
1. Food Security as a Cross-Portfolio Challenge
Position the Ministry of Food such that it connects food policy with Treasury (Measuring what matters), Climate and Energy (National Climate Strategy), Industry (Future Made in Australia), Health (preventive health), and Regional Development.
Finding basis: Consistent cross-sectoral framing across clusters and alignment with Universities, health submissions, wellness advocates and the CSIRO.
2. Develop Complementary Implementation Pathways
The grid-management approach outlined above is an integrated governance mechanism that uses parallel pathways that reflect stakeholder clusters can be adopted appropriately at a regional level while contributing to the national priorities.
Finding basis: Distinct cluster orientations revealed through PCA and clustering.
3. Establish Working Groups on Bridge Concepts
High level working groups that connect the elements of the governments broader agenda employ the bridging concepts that emerge from our data across these projects. These bridging concepts form the columns of the grid management approach and include:
o Climate adaptation and food security
o Regional food system development
o Integrated food system planning
Finding basis: Bridge Concept Analysis identified shared terms across divergent groups.
4. Acknowledge Systems-Thinking Constituencies
The role of universities, health sector organisations, the CSIRO, and advocates for systemic change in identifying the complex relationships between the competing agenda needs to be harnessed in the delivery and roll out of this model. They have the capacity to operate as advisors and consultants to both the guardians of the bridging concepts that form the columns of the grid management approach and the project managers attempting to deliver the intended outcomes for their stakeholders (the rows).
Finding basis: Clusters demonstrating balanced or integrative approaches, supported by Food Horizons.
5. Embed Resilience Through Diversity as a Guiding Principle
Recognise that multiple, sometimes competing agendas can coexist without zero-sum competition if coordinated appropriately.
Finding basis: Evidence of distinct but potentially complementary frames of reference across submissions.
Methodological Constraints
Computational text analysis reveals discourse patterns but cannot determine policy effectiveness or stakeholder representativeness. Our findings indicate what stakeholders are concerned about, not necessarily what policies should prioritize.
Implementation Challenges and Approaches
Multiple policy agendas create coordination challenges. However, ignoring this multiplicity through artificial narrowing may create greater implementation problems by misaligning policy design with stakeholder priorities. It also misses the opportunity to integrate the National Food Security Strategy with the efforts of Treasury, Health, Education and Social Services to integrate wellbeing and abundance into the national agenda and the Future Made In Australia initiative to strengthen Australia’s internal capacity and reduce our dependence on international supply chains.
In addition to studying global approaches to implementing diverse policies through mission mapping (Mazzucato, 2018), impact plans (Malekpour, Tawfik, & Chesterfield, 2021) social enterprise (Coghlan, Labrecque, Ma, & Dubé, 2020) and associative economics (Budd, 2024), the primary author has had the privilege of using the “grid management’ framework developed by Federal Treasurer Edward Theodore and Sir Frank Packer in the 1930s and employed at Australian Consolidated Press (ACP) until the turn of the millennium.
Grid management avoids the control and command structures of a hierarchical reporting system allowing innovation to proceed safely by separating the creative drivers of projects designed to create impact, from the management of resources required to deliver those projects. At Consolidated Press the creative projects forming the rows of the grid were magazines or other enterprises designed to generate revenue. The columns were the supply units investing in paper, printing, distribution that purchased the resources required.
This separation of accounts receivable and accounts payable into an orthogonal structure meant that revenue generators were free to make all management decisions but had to convince the internal expert on every resource before they made any decision to change spending patterns. As a result, three executives could run the entire company, using annual planning meetings with each revenue generating unit to determine strategy, and resolving any disputes between the creative revenue generators and the cost-controlling procurement departments. There was an additional protection of diversity that protected against ossification of supply chains. Every supply line had three suppliers who each got at least one sixth of the business and never more than two thirds. Packer interests often owned one of the suppliers, who generally had around one half of the supply contracts.
The application of grid management to diverse projects with an overlapping and sometimes contradictory set of objectives allows a small federal government task force to manage a rich variety of projects in alignment with a set of key principles that have measurable objectives. It lends itself to both small regional projects designed to achieve specific objectives such as avoiding nutrient and soil run-off from agriculture damaging the reef, to high tech national projects such as powering a bio-synthesis economy based on converting bio-mass into high value products ranging from fuels, through food, to advanced plastics. This is consistent with Mazzucato’s Mission Planning approach at the heart of works such The Entrepreneurial State (Mazzucato, 2011).
Each project would be focused on specific elements of the key priority areas and address the common bridging principles as well as the specific objectives to which it is aligned. The project managers would have the support of experts in the relevant priority areas and be dependent on them for the requisite resources to facilitate their delivery of the impact the project is designed to achieve.
Conclusion
Our computational analysis of 188 stakeholder submissions demonstrates that food security in Australia is conceptualised through multiple, distinct policy frames. While some stakeholders emphasise trade, productivity, and export orientation, others prioritise environmental sustainability, social equity, or integrated systems approaches. These clusters reveal that food security is not a singular policy issue but a multi-dimensional challenge that cuts across health, climate, industry, and regional development.
The methodological approach—combining clustering, seriation, and bridge concept analysis—identified both points of divergence and shared concepts that connect different stakeholder groups. Notably, climate adaptation, integrated food systems, and regional resilience emerged as bridging terms that could serve as focal points for cross-sectoral policy development. Validation against independent frameworks, such as CSIRO’s Food Horizons, further strengthens confidence in these findings.
The recommendations derived from this analysis are therefore grounded in evidence. A cross-portfolio framing of food security, supported by complementary implementation pathways and working groups around bridging concepts, provides a policy structure capable of incorporating stakeholder diversity. This approach reduces the risk of zero-sum competition for resources while enhancing system resilience.
By aligning food security with broader government initiatives—including Measuring What Matters, the National Climate Strategy, and Future Made in Australia—the Strategy can more accurately reflect stakeholder concerns and national priorities. The approach of identifying resonance in competing agenda facilitates security through abundance: diversity leads to resilience, whereas optimisation can entrench fragility.
In sum, the National Food Security Strategy has the opportunity to build on substantial stakeholder support for systems thinking and policy integration. Doing so will ensure that food security is addressed not only as an agricultural challenge but as a national priority spanning wellbeing, sustainability, and resilience.
Disclosure of Interest
The primary author, Geoff Ebbs, is a director of Food Connect Foundation, a not-for-profit registered charity committed to building the foundations of new regenerative food systems. Both Griffith University and Food Connect Foundation are aware of his dual roles. The secondary author, Louis Sanzogni has no relevant interests to declare.
Technical appendices available on request, including detailed clustering results, bridge concept analysis, and comparison with international food security discourse patterns.
References
Australia, P. o. (2023). Submissions received by the Committee (Database of submissions to Food Security Inquiry). Retrieved from https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Agriculture/FoodsecurityinAustrali/Submissions. Submissions to Inquiry Retrieved 5th January 2024, from Australian Parliament https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Agriculture/FoodsecurityinAustrali/Submissions
Bank, C. (2025). Renowned demographer Bernard Salt AM on what’s next for Gippsland [Corporate communications]. Retrieved from https://www.commbank.com.au/business/brighter-perspectives/bernard-salt-on-whats-next-for-gippsland.html
Budd, C. H. (2024). Beyond Gold: Hayek, Keynes and Steiner in Concert: Ethics International Press.
Coghlan, C., Labrecque, J., Ma, Y., & Dubé, L. (2020). A Biological Adaptability Approach to Innovation for Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs): Strategic Insights from and for Health-Promoting Agri-Food Innovation. Sustainability, 12(10), 4227. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/docview/2406448401?accountid=14543&bdid=1529&_bd=R5SvDSoxzlpbbfvvxyyGZGpqr7M%3D
Dixon, J., Dixon, J., Richards, C., & Richards, C. (2016). On food security and alternative food networks: understanding and performing food security in the context of urban bias. Agriculture and human values, 33(1), 191-202. doi:10.1007/s10460-015-9630-y
Larder, N. (2017). Planning for Food Justice within Urban Australia. In (pp. 187-196): Routledge.
Malekpour, S., Tawfik, S., & Chesterfield, C. (2021). Designing collaborative governance for nature-based solutions. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 62. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127177
Mazzucato, M. (2011). The entrepreneurial state. Soundings, 49(49), 131-142.
Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented innovation policies: challenges and opportunities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(5), 803-815. doi:10.1093/icc/dty034
Nelson, R. (2025). Food Systems Horizon. Retrieved from Brisbane, Australia: https://www.csiro.au/en/work-with-us/industries/agriculture/food-system-horizons
Sippel, S. R., & Larder, N. (2021). Bridging divides: constructing food sovereignty in Australia. The Journal of peasant studies, 48(2), 368-386. doi:10.1080/03066150.2019.1655638